I made no analysis. I regurgitated facts from various stories regarding the circumstances. Then I commented on the lack of reasonable evidence reported that would lead a normal person to suggest the victim was "a royal prick."
There is no argument that can be made about the validity of my post. You look silly trying to discredit me. The "royal prick" shot the evil texter in the chest after he got a face full of popcorn.
How many times have you thrown popcorn on somebody in a theater? How many of your family members or friends have done so? Doing such is an assault; a crime.
Without knowing more, the evidence would seem insufficient to justify shooting, but you don't have to wait for someone who is attacking you to cause injury. You just have to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death.
What do you think that the attacker was going to do AFTER throwing the popcorn? Just sit down and enjoy the movie? Would he break off the attack and leave the theater? Did he have anything else in his hands?
What was the reasonable thing for the ex-cop to do? Stand there and absorb whatever punishment was to follow the popcorn? Sit down and make himself more vulnerable? Run away and make his wife the possible target of whatever was coming?
The ex-cop was in a place where it was legal for him to be. I don't believe he had any legal duty to retreat and since his wife was with him, retreat may have been a problem. THAT is a "stand your ground" situation.
Is throwing popcorn a felony? Is it a violent felony? What further attack could be expected? Is deadly force permitted to stop someone who has or is about to commit a violent felony from doing so?